Barry Sears wrote: ↑
May 14th, 2018, 3:09 am
Perhaps you missed my answer several times, I'll try again.
You seem to have missed my primary answer, which is that any hypothesis about a gradual change such as Earth spinning closer to the sun fails to explain the abrupt
climate change seen recently, and the unprecedented warming pace currently being measured.
The rest of this post seems to concern the validity of that hypothesis, but not the main point that it doesn't explain abrupt
You will obviously be familiar with the precessional movements but what is the cause of the tropical year getting shorter by 20 minutes every year compared to a sidereal year. The fact is that a year is getting shorter is basic knowledge.
And your confirmation bias leaps from the page. The tropical year does not 'get shorter' by 20 minutes each year. It IS shorter (than the sidereal year), and is not something that changes from year to year.
The fact that a year is getting shorter is not basic knowledge at all. I could find no references to it. I found no cosmic-drag theory in my searches. It does not seem to be sufficiently accepted or even referenced to get hit in my search attempts. All the searches turn up answers that say the year is actually getting longer, but by trivial amounts (not a significant difference in even 4 billion years). There are known forces to account for Earth receding from the sun, and these are greater than the known forces reducing the orbital radius, but all of them are fairly trivial over billions of years.
'Cosmic drag' is not a known force. Where is the reaction to this action, or is this a rewrite of all physics that discards even Newton's third law of motion?
Here is another motion which you may be familiar with but most will not. This is the Milankovitch cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
. This explains how we are currently in a phases moving towards the sun in a warming phase.
These are regular cycles in tilt and orbital eccentricity. It explains the ice age cycles, but not an abrupt change. I found zero mention of Earth moving towards the sun in the article, except that it on average absorbs a bit more solar radiation during periods when the orbit is less eccentric. These are cycles and have no cumulative effect beyond tens of thousands of years.
Here is a reference to the wiki talk forum helping formulate and desrcibe some of the ideas. This is an indication of how young this motion is. Bit of reading especially with the links but it gives you a better comprehension of where we are at.
Seems to be a Q&A on the same subjects as the Milankovitch cycles. All cycles, and no questions concerning cumulative changes to the length of the year. I do see a question about the 20 minute difference between tropical year and sidereal year.
Here are a few quotes also from additional discussions on the subject.
Links? I have no context for these. Measuring a year length by days is useless if the day length is not known to be constant. Doing it by hours or seconds would be more useful.
I will comment only on the last one, since it seems to be numbers cherry-picked for a climate denial purposes. I suspect the other quotes come from similarly motivated sources.
The first edition of The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1771 (Astronomy, page 453) records the length of the solar year as 365.2564 days and the Earth's mean distance from the Sun at 94,725,840 miles. The astronomical measurements from 1771 are greater than our present calculations (365.2422 and 93,000,000+/-) and indicate (presuming accuracy) that our orbit is presently in a contracting phase with global warming as a natural result.
They measured it to 7 significant digits in 1771 and can only manage 2 digits today. Hmm...
The 365.2564 value contradicts the 365.2423 value in the other red quote above for about 8 times further back.
The figures given imply that the Earth spin is actually increasing since the length of the year has shortened considerably more (~1.3%) than has the count of days per year (~0.004%) over the same time period. Now what force would account for that?
If we've lost 1,725,000 miles in 240 years, Earth will drop into the sun in less than 13000 years. Funny that nobody seems worried about these figures.